>Whoever’s comparing caffeine in coffee, etc. with nicotine needs his head
>examined.  The addiction to nicotine helps keep you smoking.  Lung cancer
>is forty times more likely in smokers than non-smokers.  Caffeine in coffee or soft drinks may keep you drinking.  But cancer and other diseases have not shown
>any correlation with caffeine.  The analogy just isn’t there.

>Abby

There *is* a similar analogy with caffeine/coffee. Coffee contains oils which
are suspected in aggrivating coronary artery plaque buildup. Caffeine itself
even in soft drink dosage levels is not that good for folks with a genetic
predisposition for hypertension.

That would be nicotine-fortified chewing gum, wouldn’t it?  I bet that
this form of delivery would not be as satisfying for the user, because
the drug would enter the bloodstream relatively slowly, in comparison
with smoking it.  Smoking tobacco (or any drug) gives the user
nearly instant gratification, which reinforces the habit.

Jake.

–
Whoever achieves understanding of the baboon will do more for metaphysics
than Locke did, which is to say he will do more for philosophy in general,
including the problem of knowlege.
                                                        <– Charles Darwin

 I am not so sure; For one, the body of literature available for "other
constituents" is no comparison to that on nicotine.  And these studies show
significant and positive correlations between nicotine and various
pathological endpoints.  So it is obvious that nicotine is definitely not an
"innocent bystander" as far as I understand.  Hence, "nicotine-only
cigarettes" were never attempted (not that it wont be popular .

Swamy Yeleswaram, Ph.D.

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

yeleswa…@watson.bms.com writes:
> I was watching "Day One", an investigative reporting program by ABC.
They
> talked about cigarette manufacturers "spiking" nicotine to cigarettes
to make
> them addictive.  They also showed FDA’s David Kessler talking to some
House
> committee members about this.  Essentially he was trying to make a case
for
> regulating cigarettes under the purview of "drugs" and he went on to
say that
> cigarettes of today are nothing but sophisticated nicotine delivery
systems
> and since nicotine is addictive, it has to be regulated.
> Since the impetus for this discussion came from suspected "nicotine
> titration", I couldnt help extrapolating the scenario.

The major harm from cigarettes is from the carcinogenic compounds and
carbon monoxide they contain, not the nicotine.  Ironically, spiking
cigarettes with nicotine may make them safer because smokers would have
to ingest fewer carcinogens to satisfy their nicotine dependence.  But I
think this anti-dependency approach is going in the wrong direction.  If
we could devise a non-carcinogenic and pleasuable delivery system for
nicotine, I believe we could live with millions of nicotine addicts.
It’s the cancer and heart disease that’s costing us money.